Physics Motivation, International Consensus, and Scope ... fileLinear Collider Planning Jim Brau Aspen Winter Meeting February 7, 2004 Physics Motivation, International Consensus,

Linear Collider PlanningLinear Collider Planning

Jim Brau Jim Brau Aspen Winter MeetingAspen Winter Meeting February 7, 2004February 7, 2004

�� Physics Motivation, International Consensus, and ScopePhysics Motivation, International Consensus, and Scope

�� Accelerator Technology DevelopmentAccelerator Technology Development

�� Accelerator Technology SelectionAccelerator Technology Selection

�� Detector Development and PlanningDetector Development and Planning

�� International International ““CollaborationCollaboration””

�� Governmental Agreements and PlanningGovernmental Agreements and Planning

Note: throughout talk, where JLC is used, this is now the GLCNote: throughout talk, where JLC is used, this is now the GLC

J. Brau - Aspen Winter Meeting - Feb 7, 2004 2

History of Support for the Linear ColliderHistory of Support for the Linear Collider

�� The Physics Motivation has been outlined by other speakers:The Physics Motivation has been outlined by other speakers:� Klaus Desch� JoAnne Hewett� Lisa Everett� Mark Trodden� others

�� A broad segment of the community has joined in support of the goA broad segment of the community has joined in support of the goal to realize the al to realize the Linear Collider Linear Collider � ICFA Statement on Linear Colliders – 1999

� Recommends vigorous R&D to be ready in a few years(http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/icfa_LCstatement.html)

� Snowmass Consensus Statement – 2001� strongly recommends the expeditious construction of a Linear Collider as the next major international High

Energy Physics project� DOE/NSF Subpanel Report – 2002

� recommends that the highest priority of the U.S. program be a high-energy, high-luminosity, electron-positron linear collider

� “Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time: The Case for the e+e−−−− Linear Collider” -2003/4

� >2035 signatories� 2004 – ACFA, ECFA, and HEPAP reaffirm their commitment to the Linear Collider

(J. Dorfan, ICFA Chair)


Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time: Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time: The Case for the The Case for the ee++ee−−−−−−−− Linear ColliderLinear Collider

�� 2003/4 2003/4 –– this statement presents a unified vision of the physics this statement presents a unified vision of the physics potential of the linear collider. potential of the linear collider.

�� The statement has helped the The statement has helped the International Linear Collider Steering International Linear Collider Steering Committee Committee to define the scope of the baseline facility. to define the scope of the baseline facility.

�� This This ““consensus documentconsensus document”” signed by over 2000 members of the signed by over 2000 members of the worldworld--wide communitywide community� It’s still possible to sign:

http://sbhep1.physics.sunysb.edu/~grannis/lc_consensus.htmlhttp://sbhep1.physics.sunysb.edu/~grannis/lc_consensus.html


The ScopeThe Scope

�� What machine is required to reach the physics goals?What machine is required to reach the physics goals?

� USLCSG Detector/Physics Subcommittee took on the task of defining the key machine parameters. They have produced a document which is the basis for the comparative study of warm and cold technologies

� USLCSG – Scope Document - March, 2003 (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~hll/USLCSG/BidToHost/MachineScopeA30323.pdf)

� Subsequently, the ILCSC Parameters Subcommittee developed an international consensus on the required parameters:

� ILCSC – Parameter Subcommittee Report – September, 2003 (http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/LC_parameters.pdf)


Design Considerations for an International Linear ColliderDesign Considerations for an International Linear Collider(USLCSG Scope Document)(USLCSG Scope Document)

E. Blucher (University of Chicago) J. Brau (University of Oregon, Eugene) D. Gerdes (University of Michigan)L. Gibbons (Cornell University)D. Karlen (University of Victoria) Y-K. Kim (University of Chicago) H. Murayama (University of California, Berkeley) M. Oreglia (Editor, University of Chicago) J. Richman (University of California, Santa Barbara) R. Van Kooten (Indiana University)

The American Linear Collider Physics GroupExecutive Committee

23 March 2003

Abstract

We describe the physics-motivated minimal design specifications for an e+e− linearcollider. Machine options and upgrades are also discussed. We conclude that such aMachine should have the following capabilities:

•Initial center-of-mass energy: √s = 500 GeV•Integrated luminosity at √s = 500 GeV: 500 fb-1 within four years of physicsrunning, corresponding to a design luminosity of approximately 2 × 1034 cm-2 s-1

•Electron polarization: at least 80%•Energy upgradeable to approximately 1 TeV or more•Capability for occasional running at √s = 91 GeV•Accomodation for two experimental halls•Probability of a beam crossing angle


Report from the IntReport from the Int’’l Parameters Subcommitteel Parameters Subcommittee

�� Comparison of ILC parameters and US scope parameters Comparison of ILC parameters and US scope parameters interpreted by M. interpreted by M. OregliaOreglia

Released by the ILCSC Released by the ILCSC at its Nov 19, 2003 Paris meetingat its Nov 19, 2003 Paris meeting


Accelerator Technology and DesignsAccelerator Technology and Designs


ILCILC--TRC 2003TRC 2003

1994 - A Technical Review Committee was created in 1994

1995 - report

2001 – ICFA requested a second report – new committee – same chair: G. Loew

� To assess the present technical status of the four LC designs atTo assess the present technical status of the four LC designs at�� hand, and their potentials for meeting the advertised paramehand, and their potentials for meeting the advertised parametersters�� at 500 GeV c.m.. Use common criteria, definitions, computerat 500 GeV c.m.. Use common criteria, definitions, computer�� codes, etc., for the assessmentscodes, etc., for the assessments

�� To assess the potential of each design for reaching higher eTo assess the potential of each design for reaching higher energiesnergies�� above 500 GeV c.m.above 500 GeV c.m.

�� To establish, for each design, the R&D work that remains to To establish, for each design, the R&D work that remains to bebe�� done in the next few yearsdone in the next few years

�� To suggest future areas of collaborationTo suggest future areas of collaboration


TRC Ranking Criteria for R&D TasksTRC Ranking Criteria for R&D Tasks

�� R1: R1: R&D needed for feasibility demonstration of the machineR&D needed for feasibility demonstration of the machine

�� R2: R2: R&D needed to finalize design choices and ensure reliability of R&D needed to finalize design choices and ensure reliability of the machinethe machine

�� R3: R3: R&D needed before starting production of systems and R&D needed before starting production of systems and componentscomponents

�� R4: R4: R&D desirable for technical or cost optimizationR&D desirable for technical or cost optimization

Executive Summary: “did not find any insurmountable obstacle to building TESLA, JLC-C, JLC-X/NLC within the next few years…”


R1 TasksR1 TasksR&D needed for feasibility demonstration of the machineR&D needed for feasibility demonstration of the machine


Progress Toward Superconducting R1Progress Toward Superconducting R1

Remaining R1: Building and testing of a complete Cryomodule at 35 MV/m, with couplers. Measurements of quench rates and dark currents


XX--Band Pulse Compression R1 Achieved Band Pulse Compression R1 Achieved -- 20032003

Dualmode Resonant Delay Lines ~30 m


Accelerator Technology Selection (ITRP)Accelerator Technology Selection (ITRP)

�� ILCSC has set up an International Technology Recommendation ILCSC has set up an International Technology Recommendation Panel (ITRP) to recommend to ILCSC/ICFA the RF technology of Panel (ITRP) to recommend to ILCSC/ICFA the RF technology of the main the main linacslinacs. The ITRP comprises 12 persons, four from each . The ITRP comprises 12 persons, four from each region. region.

�� First meeting of the ITRP was held at RAL January 27First meeting of the ITRP was held at RAL January 27--28, 2004.28, 2004.

Jean-Eudes AugustinJonathan BaggerBarry Barish (Chair) Giorgio BellettiniPaul GrannisNorbert HoltkampGeorge KalmusGyung-Soo Lee Akira MasaikeKatsunobu OideVolker SoergelHirotaka Sugawara

Schedule of MeetingsJanuary 27-28, 2004 –

held at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. April 5-6, 2004 - to be held at DESY.April 26-27, 2004 - to be held at SLAC.

May 25-26, 2004 - to be held at KEK.


Charge for the ITRPCharge for the ITRP

General Considerations

�� Recommend a Linear Collider (LC) technology to the InternationalRecommend a Linear Collider (LC) technology to the International Linear Linear Collider Steering Collider Steering Committee(ILCSCCommittee(ILCSC).).

�� Choice should be between TESLA and JLCChoice should be between TESLA and JLC--X/NLC (if necessary, CX/NLC (if necessary, C--band band incorporation should be evaluated)incorporation should be evaluated)

�� Base recommendation on all relevant scientific, technical, schedBase recommendation on all relevant scientific, technical, schedule, and cost ule, and cost considerations. Major references:considerations. Major references:� ITRC Second Report 2003� the document “Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time”, which outlines the

case for the electron-positron linear collider

�� Panel will hear presentations from the design proponents addressPanel will hear presentations from the design proponents addressing the above ing the above issues.issues.� The agendas of the presentations will be approved by the Panel in advance to assure

uniformity of coverage of the technologies put forward. � Panel may ask for expert advice on any of the considerations, drawing first on the

ILCSC and its expert subcommittees, then moving beyond the ILCSC as necessary and appropriate.

� Relevant input from the world particle physics community will be solicited.


Charge for the IRTP (continued)Charge for the IRTP (continued)

SScientific Criteriacientific Criteria� Scope and parameters are defined in the document “Parameters for the Linear Collider”

Technical CriteriaTechnical Criteria� Technical Review Committee report (2003)� Materials supplied by technical experts that may be called� Potential of each conceptual design to achieve the energies and peak and integrated

luminosities needed for the scientific program of “Parameters for the Linear Collider”

Schedule CriteriaSchedule Criteria� Compare milestones relating to design, engineering and industrialization for each of the

two technologies

Cost CriteriaCost Criteria� Cost differential between the two designs at 500 GeV and possibly for upgrades set forth

in the ILC Parameters Document. � Cost information based on available estimates as well as on the Panel’s judgments of the

reliability or completeness of the cost estimates. � Decide items to be included in the cost estimates in arriving at a comparative analyses.


Charge for the IRTP (continued)Charge for the IRTP (continued)

Report of the PanelUnanimity in the Panel’s recommendation is highly desirable in order to establish the firmest foundation for this challenging global project.

The Panel is urged to report its recommendation as soon as possible, with a firm deadline by the end of 2004.

A full written report with the Panel’s evaluation of each of the technologies considered should be available as soon as possible after the Panel’s deliberations have been concluded.

The making of the technology choice is a key event in the world particle physics program and thus timeliness in the Panel’s reporting is of prime importance. The science agencies need to see a demonstration of the particle physics community’s determination and ability to collaborate and to unite around the technology chosen by the Panel, as a trigger for their efforts to collaborate in forming a global project.


Charge for the IRTP (continued)

Operation of the PanelThe ILCSC suggestions regarding procedure.

� The Accelerator Subcommittee of the ILCSC to give an extensive tutorial on the LC.

� Inform the Panel about LC issues and acquaint it with the experts from whom they can solicit advice.

� Visits to the major LC technology sites, in as close a sequence as possible, would help to solidify understanding of the status and issues while allowing the Panel to receive input on each technology.

� The ILCSC Accelerator Subcommittee should be in session on site at the Panel meeting place during their meetings.

� Presentation sessions will be open to the scientific and funding agency communities.


Advisory Group to ITRP:Advisory Group to ITRP:the ILCSC Accelerator Subcommitteethe ILCSC Accelerator Subcommittee

�� CoCo--opted the core members of the second TRCopted the core members of the second TRC

�� This subcommittee will play a key role as subjectThis subcommittee will play a key role as subject--matter matter experts for the International Technology experts for the International Technology Recommendation PanelRecommendation Panel

�� To provide expert advise to the ITRP, the accelerator To provide expert advise to the ITRP, the accelerator subcommittee will meet in parallel, onsubcommittee will meet in parallel, on--site, during the site, during the ITRP meetingsITRP meetings

G. Loew, Chair (SLAC) G. Dugan, Deputy Chair (Cornell) H. Braun (CERN) N. Toge (KEK) J. Urakawa (KEK) K. Yokoya (KEK) M. Yoshioka (KEK) G. Geschonke (CERN) R. Brinkmann (DESY) T. Raubenheimer (SLAC) N. Solyak (FNAL) A. Wolski (LBNL) O. Napoly (CEA, Saclay)

ILCSC Accelerator Subcommittee


US Input to ITRPUS Input to ITRP

�� The USLCSG accelerator subcommittee (chair: G. Dugan) took on The USLCSG accelerator subcommittee (chair: G. Dugan) took on the challenging task of providing for the world community a the challenging task of providing for the world community a comparison of a comparison of a USUS--based machinebased machine using either warm or cold using either warm or cold technology. technology.

�� Report will be completed in early 2004Report will be completed in early 2004

� USLCSG review of the draft report at FNAL, Thursday, Dec 11, 2003

� Report will be reviewed at DESY and KEK soon, and then released

�� Highly detailed and technically rich report (475 pages) will be Highly detailed and technically rich report (475 pages) will be available to the ITRP during its deliberations. (see soon at available to the ITRP during its deliberations. (see soon at www.linearcollider.orgwww.linearcollider.org))

�� This report does This report does notnot make a technical recommendation.make a technical recommendation.


USLCSG USLCSG ChargeCharge for Technology Options Studyfor Technology Options Study

�� Two technology options are to be developed: a warm option, basedTwo technology options are to be developed: a warm option, basedon the design of the NLC Collaboration, and a cold option, similon the design of the NLC Collaboration, and a cold option, similar ar to the TESLA design at DESY.to the TESLA design at DESY.

�� Both options will meet the physics design requirements specifiedBoth options will meet the physics design requirements specified by by the USLCSG Scope document.the USLCSG Scope document.

�� Both options will be developed in concert, using, as much as Both options will be developed in concert, using, as much as possible, similar approaches in technical design for similar possible, similar approaches in technical design for similar accelerator systems, and a common approach to cost and schedule accelerator systems, and a common approach to cost and schedule estimation methodology, and to risk/reliability assessments.estimation methodology, and to risk/reliability assessments.


Detector Development and PlanningDetector Development and Planning

�� Physics and Detector Studies and R&D are being conducted, Physics and Detector Studies and R&D are being conducted, coordinated, and merged to the extent possible through the Worldcoordinated, and merged to the extent possible through the World--wide Studywide Study

F. RichardF. Richard

http://blueox.uoregon.edu/~lc/alcpg

http://blueox.uoregon.edu/~lc/wwstudy


Collaborating on Physics WorldCollaborating on Physics World--widewide

�� Detector R&DDetector R&D� Subsystem working groups (eg. Calorimetry, Tracking,…..)� International R&D Committee� TPC, CALICE, SILC

� Examples of International Detector Development Collaborations

�� Physics StudiesPhysics Studies� eg. LC/LHC Study, Connections to Cosmology� Standard topics (Higgs, SUSY, etc.)

�� Regional Meetings Regional Meetings –– strong interstrong inter--regional participationregional participation� ALCPG meeting at SLAC (January, 2004)� ALCPG meeting at Cornell (August, 2003)� ACFA meeting at Mumbai (December, 2003)� ECFA meeting at Montpellier (September, 2003)

�� WorldWorld--wide Workshopswide Workshops� LCWS 2002 at Jeju, Korea� LCWS 2004 in Paris

Next ALCPG meeting in Victoria, July 28-31


Detector R&D is CriticalDetector R&D is Critical

Graphically summarizedby Jae Yu


Forming an International LC Design GroupForming an International LC Design Group

�� ILCSC established a task force to recommend how best to ILCSC established a task force to recommend how best to establish an internationally federated design group establish an internationally federated design group

� Will start the machine design as soon after the technology decision as possible.

� First step in internationalizing the LC.

� The goal is to have the structure of this design group agreed upon by ICFA and the funding agencies prior to finalizing the technology choice.

�� Members of the task force are Members of the task force are

� Satoshi Ozaki (Chair), Jonathan Dorfan, Brian Foster, Won Namkung, Yoji Totsuka, Albrecht Wagner .

�� Report expected February, 2004Report expected February, 2004


USLCSC Proposal USLCSC Proposal -- July 2003July 2003

ICFAICFA

ILCSCILCSC Agencies

Asia/PacificAsia/Pacific(Regional Manager)

EuropeEurope(Regional Manager)

The AmericasThe Americas(Regional Manager)

Other (s)Other (s)(Regional Manager)

Central (20Central (20--30)30)Management Group

ExecutiveExecutiveCouncil

Regional SteeringCommittees

InternationalOrganization

Level

RegionalOrganization

Level

Phase IPhase I

ExistingFunding mechanisms




Deliverable: CDR and plan for realizing a TDR

DRAFT


Regional Proposals for Linear Collider OrganizationRegional Proposals for Linear Collider Organization

�� JLC Globalization Report (Dec, 2002)JLC Globalization Report (Dec, 2002)� http://lcdev.kek.jp/GLCC/

�� ECFA SubECFA Sub--group on group on OrganisationalOrganisational Matters (Matters (KalmusKalmus report)report)� Possible collaborative arrangements for the design, construction and operation

� Administrative structures needed to realise the above, including chains of responsibility

� Obligations and responsibilities of partners, including models for stable funding of the construction and operation

� Mechanisms for ensuring proper project and budgetary control

� Formal aspects of the collaborative arrangements (free access, intellectual property etc.)

http://committees.web.cern.ch/Committees/ECFA/Cern03KalmusReport.pdf

�� The USLCSG International Affairs subcommittee has a draft reportThe USLCSG International Affairs subcommittee has a draft reportwhich will be released in February 2004which will be released in February 2004


Governmental Actions, Agreements and PlanningGovernmental Actions, Agreements and Planning

�� Very significant step in the US: Very significant step in the US: ““The Linear Collider is the first The Linear Collider is the first priority among the midpriority among the mid--term facilitiesterm facilities”” for the Office of Science for the Office of Science ––Nov 10, 2003 Nov 10, 2003 � http://www.er.doe.gov/Sub/Facilities_for_future/20-Year-Outlook-

screen.pdf� Another important step in US – Vest Report� July 30 London – “premeeting” of Agency folks (Europe and

N.America) to enumerate the challenges and questions facing creation of agency based governance for an international projectorganization. � This meeting was an informal body to share views and opinions on

prospects and issues in each of the states involved. The group discussed the status of current funding for a linear collider (LC) and their perceptions of the prospects for the future.

� Next meeting of “Agency folks” – April (6-7 ??)� OECD – latest meeting - January 29-30, 2004 – Paris


OrganisationOrganisation for Economic Cofor Economic Co--operation and Developmentoperation and Development

� OECD Global Science Forum analysis of particle physics (July 2002)� agreed with the world-wide consensus on LC – concurrent operation with LHC� recommends continuation of consultations in preparation of the meeting of the

OECD science ministers in 2004.

� Meeting of the OECD Science Ministers� January 28-29, 2004

•Acknowledged the importance of ensuring access to large-scale research infrastructure and the importance of the long-term vitality of high-energy physics. •Noted worldwide consensus of the scientific community for an electron-positron linear collideras the next accelerator-based facility to complement and expand on the discoveries of the LHC•Agreed that the planning and implementation should be carried out on a global basis, and should involve consultations among scientists and representatives of science funding agencies from interested countries.

•Noted the need for strong international R&D collaboration and studies of the organisational, legal, financial, and administrative issues required to realise the next major accelerator facility, a next-generation electron-positron collider with a significant concurrent running with the LHC.


SummarySummary

�� The past two years (since the Bagger/The past two years (since the Bagger/BarishBarish subpanelsubpanel report) have report) have seen many positive developments toward realizing the linear collseen many positive developments toward realizing the linear colliderider� Regional Steering Groups Formed� International Steering Committee Formed� Scope Defined Internationally� Consensus Document Expressed Physics Goals and Drove Scope� TRC Evaluation of Technologies� ITRP Commissioned and Working� Central Design Group Being Planned� US (and Japanese) Project Comparisons� OECD and Governmental Attention and Deliberation

�� Many of the necessary steps are being takenMany of the necessary steps are being taken

Documents

Physics Motivation, International Consensus, and Scope ... fileLinear Collider Planning Jim Brau Aspen Winter Meeting February 7, 2004 Physics Motivation, International Consensus,